Casuistry: Difference between revisions

[[File:Le grand docteur sophiste, maistre Thubal Holoferne.jpg|thumb|''Le grand docteur sophiste'', 1886 illustration of [[Gargantua]] by [[Albert Robida]], expressing mockery of his casuist education.]]

'''Casuistry''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|æ|zj|u|ᵻ|s|t|r|i}} {{respell|KAZ|ew|iss|tree}}) is a process of [[reasoning]] that seeks to resolve [[Ethical dilemma|moral problem]]s by extracting or extending theoreticalabstract rules from a particular case, and reapplying those rules to new instances.<ref>{{cite web|title=Philosophy-Dictionary.org|url=http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/casuistry|work=casuistry|access-date=7 December 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118123139/http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/casuistry|archive-date=18 January 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref> This method occurs in [[applied ethics]] and [[jurisprudence]]. The term is also commonly used as a [[pejorative]]ly to criticizecriticise the use of clever but [[Soundness|unsound]] reasoning, especially in relation to moral[[ethical]] questions (as in [[sophistry]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-35 |title=Casuistry |website=Dictionary of the History of Ideas |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060618095059/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-35 |archive-date=18 June 2006 |publisher=[[University of Virginia Library]]}}</ref> It ishas thebeen "[s]tudydefined ofas cases of conscience and a method of solving conflicts of obligations by applying general principles of ethics, religion, and moral theology to particular and concrete cases of human conduct. This frequently demands an extensive knowledge of natural law and equity, civil law, ecclesiastical precepts, and an exceptional skill in interpreting these various norms of conduct."<ref>{{cite web|last=Runes|first=Dagobert D.|title=Dictionary of Philosophy|url=httpfollows://www.ditext.com/runes/c.html|access-date=7 December 2011}}</ref> It remains a common tool for applied ethics.<ref>{{cite web|title=Philosophy Pages|url=http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c.htm#casu|work=Casuistry|access-date=7 December 2011}}</ref>

According to the [[Online Etymology Dictionary|Online Etymological Dictionary]], the term and its agent noun "casuist", appearing from about 1600, derive from the [[Latin]] noun {{wiktla|casus}}, meaning "case", especially as referring to a "case of conscience". The same source says that, "[e]venEven in the earliest printed uses the sense was pejorative".<ref name="OED">{{Cite web|last=Harper|first=Douglas R.|title=casuist (n.)|url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/casuist?ref=etymonline_crossreference|access-date=March 14, 2021|website=Online Etymological Dictionary}}</ref>

ItThe was20th notcentury untilsaw publicationa revival of interest in casuistry. In their book ''The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning'' (1988), by Albert Jonsen and [[Stephen Toulmin]],<ref>Albert Jonsen and [[Stephen Toulmin]], ''The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning'', Berkeley, U. California Press (1990, {{ISBN|0-520-06960-9}}).</ref> that a revival of casuistry occurred. They argue that the abuse of casuistryit is the problem, not casuistry ''perbut se''its (itselfabuse anthat examplehas ofbeen casuistica problem; reasoning).that, Properlyproperly used, casuistry is powerful reasoning. Jonsen and Toulmin offer casuistry inas a method for dissolvingcompromising the contradictory tenetsprinciples of [[moral absolutism]] and the common secular [[moral relativism]]: "the form of reasoning constitutive of classical casuistry is [[rhetorical reason]]ing".<ref>Jonsen, 1991, p. 297.</ref>In Moreoveraddition, the ethical philosophies of [[Utilitarianismutilitarianism]] (especially [[preference utilitarianism]]) and [[Pragmatismpragmatism]] commonlyhave arebeen identified as greatly employing casuistic reasoning.{{by whom|date=June 2022}}

The casuistic method was popular among [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] thinkers in the early modern period, and not only among the [[Jesuits]], as it is commonly thought{{by whom?|date=May 2022}}. <section end=Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church transclusion/>Famous casuisticCasuistic authors include [[Antonio Escobar y Mendoza]], whose ''Summula casuum conscientiae'' (1627) enjoyed a great success, [[Thomas Sanchez]], [[Vincenzo Filliucci]] (Jesuit and [[Apostolic Penitentiary|penitentiary]] at [[St Peter]]'s), [[Antonino Diana]], [[Paul Laymann]] (''Theologia Moralis'', 1625), [[John Azor]] (''Institutiones Morales'', 1600), [[Etienne Bauny]], [[Louis Cellot]], [[Valerius Reginaldus]], and [[Hermann Busembaum]] (d. 1668), etc.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Decock|first=Wim|date=2011|title=From Law to Paradise: Confessional Catholicism and Legal Scholarship|journal=Rechtsgeschichte|volume=2011|issue=18|pages=012–034|doi=10.12946/rg18/012-034|issn=1619-4993|doi-access=free}}</ref> <section begin=Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church transclusion/>One of the main theses of casuists was the necessity to adapt the rigorous morals of the [[Church Fathers|Early Fathers]] of [[Christianity]] to modern morals, which led in some extreme cases to justify what [[Innocent XI]] later called "laxist moral" (i.e. justification of [[usury]], [[homicide]], [[regicide]], [[lie|lying]] through "[[Doctrine of mental reservation|mental reservation]]", [[Catholic teachings on sexual morality|adultery and loss of virginity before marriage]], etc.—all due cases registered by [[Blaise Pascal|Pascal]] in the ''[[Provincial Letters]]'').{{citation needed|date=November 2019}}

The progress of casuistry was interrupted toward the middle of the 17th century by the controversy which arose concerning the [[Catholic probabilism|doctrine of probabilism]], which stipulatedeffectively stated that one could choose to follow a "probable opinion", {{mdash}}that is, an opinion supported by a theologian or another, {{mdash}}even if it contradicted a more probable opinion or a quotation from one of the [[Fathers of the Church]].<ref>Franklin, ''Science of Conjecture'', p. 74–6, 83.</ref> The controversy divided Catholic theologians into two camps, Rigorists and Laxists.

<section begin=Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church transclusion/>Certain kinds of casuistry were criticizedcriticised by early [[Protestant Reformation|Protestant theologians]], because it was used in order to justify many of the abuses that they sought to reform. It was famously attacked by the Catholic and [[Jansenist]] philosopher [[Blaise Pascal|Pascal]], during the [[formulary controversy]] against the Jesuits, in his [[Lettres provinciales|Provincial Letters]], as the use of [[rhetorics]] to justify moral laxity, which became identified by the public with [['''Jesuitism]]'''; hence the everyday use of the term to mean complex and [[sophist]]ic reasoning to justify moral laxity.<ref>170 "Casuistry..destroys, by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and effaces the essential difference between right and wrong." Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, ''Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism 1736'' (pub. 1749), quoted in Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 ed.</ref> By the mid-18th century, "casuistry" had become a synonym for speciousattractive-sounding, but ultimately false, moral reasoning.<ref>Jonsen, Albert R., The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning, University of California Press, 1988. {{ISBN|0-52-006063-6}} (p. 2).</ref><section end=Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church transclusion/> However, [[Puritan casuistry|Puritans]] were known for their own development of casuistry.{{citation needed|date=November 2019}}

In 1679 [[Pope Innocent&nbsp;XI]] publicly condemned sixty-five of the more radical propositions (''stricti mentalis''), taken chiefly from the writings of Escobar, [[Francisco Suarez|Suarez]] and other casuists as ''propositiones laxorum moralistarum'' and forbade anyone to teach them under penalty of [[excommunication]].<ref>Kelly, J.N.D., The Oxford History of the Popes, Oxford University Press, 1986. {{ISBN|0-19-282085-0}} (p. 287).</ref> Despite this papalcondemnation by condemnationa pope, both Catholicism and Protestantism permit the use of ambiguous and equivocal statements in specific circumstances.<ref>J.-P. Cavaillé, ''[http://dossiersgrihl.revues.org/document281.html Ruser sans mentir, de la casuistique aux sciences sociales: le recours à l’équivocité, entre efficacité pragmatique et souci éthique]'', in [[Serge Latouche]], P.-J. Laurent, O. Servais & M. Singleton, ''Les Raisons de la ruse. Une perspective anthropologique et psychanalytique'', Actes du colloque international «La raison rusée», Louvain la Neuve, mars 2001, Paris, La Découverte, 2004, pp. 93–118 {{in lang|fr}}.</ref>

[[George Edward Moore|G.&nbsp;E. Moore]] dealt with casuistry in chapter 1.4 of his ''[[Principia Ethica]]'', in which he claimsclaimed that "the defects of casuistry are not defects of principle; no objection can be taken to its aim and object. It has failed only because it is far too difficult a subject to be treated adequately in our present state of knowledge". Furthermore, he asserted that "casuistry is the goal of ethical investigation. It cannot be safely attempted at the beginning of our studies, but only at the end".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLpcgAQvr_gC&q=%22the+defects+of+casuistry+are+not+defects+of+principle+no+objection+can+be+taken+to+its+aim+and+object+it+has+failed+only+because+it+is+far+too+difficult+a+subject+to%22&pg=PA57|title=Principia Ethica|last=Moore|first=George Edward|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1993|isbn=0-521-44848-4|editor-last=Baldwin|editor-first=Thomas|editor-link=Thomas Baldwin (philosopher)|edition=2|location=Cambridge|page=57|author-link=George Edward Moore|orig-year=1903}}</ref>

Since the 1960s, [[applied ethics]] has revived the ideas of casuistry in applying ethicalmoral reasoning to particular cases in [[law]], [[bioethics]], and [[business ethics]],. soIts thefacility reputationfor ofdealing with situations where rules or values conflict with each other has made it a useful approach in professional ethics, and casuistry's isreputation has improved somewhat rehabilitatedas a result.<ref>{{CitationCite web |title=Casuistry {{!}} Ethics & Moral Decision Making {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/casuistry needed|access-date=January2024-04-11 2021|website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

{{refbegin|320em}}

* [http://www.thegreatideas.org/apd-casu.html Mortimer Adler's Great Ideas – Casuistry] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716221246/http://www.thegreatideas.org/apd-casu.html |date=16 July 2011 }}

* [http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/casuistry/Casuistry.html Casuistry – Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060618013727/http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/casuistry/Casuistry.html |date=18 June 2006 }}